Full Pundit: Does Europe deserve its Nobel Peace Prize?

Full Pundit: Does Europe deserve its Nobel Peace Prize?

WEEKEND ROUNDUP

Beyond bordersOn the matter of Europe’s Nobel Peace Price, the Ottawa Citizen‘s Dan Gardner concedes that it is, as per usual, “a political statement inspired by current circumstances.” But he also thinks “more than justified” and “welcome.” If you look at Europe 67 years ago — “rubble, blood and fear,” and a widely held belief that more was to come — and then look at it today, you have to be pretty jaded not to be impressed. “From Portugal to Bulgaria and Finland, a continent that had for centuries been ravaged by the movement of armies now experiences only the free movement of goods, services, and people — and war is both unthinkable and materially impossible, as [former French Foreign Minister Robert] Schuman had dreamed.” True, certain European economies are a mess; but they’re relatively peaceful messes. And it is, after all, a peace prize.

The Globe and Mail‘s editorialists, of all people, seem to be the most dead set against the award. “The use of the Nobel Peace Prize as a morale boost for Eurocrats struggling to contain a currency crisis is no laughing matter,” they intone. “It diminishes the prestige of the prize — and the achievements of those who truly deserve it.” If you really want to “trace the origins of European peace,” they suggest you consult the North Atlantic Treaty and give a few words of thanks to NATO and its component armed forces.

Germany might have deserved the prize, Brian Lee Crowley argues in the CalgaryHerald, for having become a less, shall we say, belligerent force in world affairs. But Europe was the “beneficiary” of this transformation, in Crowley’s view, and not the “cause.” Moreover, he notes, we all had a new common enemy in the decades since the last world war: “It was our collective determination to face down Soviet aggression that created a long era of peace,” he says. So why not give NATO the award, as both he and the Globe suggest. Because it’s “associated in the minds of Norwegian parliamentarians with that nasty Cold War, whereas the EU is warm, cuddly and pretty inoffensive,” Crowley sneers. He doesn’t think this was the sort of thing Alfred Nobel had in mind at all.

David Frum, writing in the National Post, concedes the somewhat farcical timing of the award. But he thinks it is justifiable as a “reminder flare” from Norway “to their continental neighbours: In the throes of today’s crisis, please remember, the Euro may have been a mistake, but the European Union must be preserved. The EU must be preserved not only as the obviously beneficial trading area that it is, but also … as an ideal.” “A Europe at peace with itself, a Europe of rising prosperity, a Europe in which Europeans can move freely to live and work” — that’s “a powerful and precious achievement,” Frum argues, to be neither sniggered at nor frittered away under the current trying circumstances.

Back on our side of the pond, the Toronto Star‘s Tim Harper notes that we haven’t heard much in recent months about the Beyond the Border plan to streamline various aspects of the Canada-U.S. frontier, and argues that worries over Chinese corporate espionage could endanger it if Canada is seen as weak — as it so often is — south of the border. A Mitt Romney presidency might not be good news for the border either, in Harper’s view, as “the Republicans want to regain their tough-on-security mantle” and they can’t shoot straight.

And you will be unsurprised to learn that the Star‘s Haroon Siddiqui still likes very little about Stephen Harper’s foreign policy. You may be slightly surprised that he’d waste 950 words laying out all of his complaints, apropos of basically nothing, yet again.

Politicians and your moneyParliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page is trying to do nothing less than “give MPs the tools to understand their votes, giving meaning to the foundation of our system of public accountability, the power of the purse,” writes Postmedia’s Stephen Maher — and Stephen Harper could take credit for that, were he so inclined. But while Page recently won his battle for information about forthcoming budget cuts, he won’t be there forever. If we were to be cynical, we might expect his replacement to come from the Conservatives’ roster of simpering invertebrates. But we must try not to be cynical.

The Globe‘s Adam Radwanski laments that while Ontario “is labouring under a huge budget deficit, stagnant growth projections and serious concerns about its future quality of life and the survival of its core social programs,” its politicians are preparing for yet another round of accusations and recriminations over the cancellation of two power plants, the botched (or dishonest) incomplete release of documents pertaining to same, and a contempt charge against the Energy Minister. This is unfortunate, no question. But the problem isn’t the anger over the power plants, which is completely justified: This is about as scandalous as scandals get, in Canadian politics — hundreds of millions of dollars, frittered away in broad daylight in hopes of winning a few votes. It’s grounds for dismissal all on its own. But surely there are enough hours in the day to vent fury at the Liberals for this and plan for the province’s future.

On free speechSun Media’s Ezra Levant deplores the “trumped-up pretext” under which mad pastor Terry Jones claims to have been denied entry to Canada, when it was plainly a “political decision, not a security decision.” That’s a campaign we could get behind: Down with arbitrary decisions on admissibility to Canada! Up with due process! But Levant’s appeal for Jones’ free speech right sure would ring a little truer if he hadn’t argued for George Galloway’s exclusion. Yes, you can argue that he supported a terrorist group. But there’s always some angle people can use to keep out someone they don’t like. And he clearly wasn’t a threat. The best speech warriors stand up for their enemies’ speech, too.

The Herald‘s editorialists have some significant and well-founded concerns with anti-pipeline educational materials produced by the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation that include a link to Enbridge’s website as “the other side of the story.” At least one Vancouver school board trustee thinks the BCTF should be more “circumspect” on political issues, which is a very fine idea — because, honestly, their opinion is irrelevant. We’re about as interested in a teachers’ union’s position on the oil sands as we are in a boilermarkers’ union’s position on early childhood education.

Duly notedThe Citizen‘s Janice Kennedy seems to think that ageing boomer favourites like Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones are making it impossible for any new bands to get their music heard. “With attention focused disproportionately on the past, thanks to boomer-era producers, artists and critics, new creative juices are sometimes dammed up,” she says, which is … well, it’s just stupid.

And George Jonas, writing in the Post, makes the case against affirmative action about as eloquently as irrefutably as it can be made.